Posted!

Join the Conversation

Comments

Welcome to our new and improved comments, which are for subscribers only.
This is a test to see whether we can improve the experience for you.
You do not need a Facebook profile to participate.

You will need to register before adding a comment.
Typed comments will be lost if you are not logged in.

Please be polite.
It's OK to disagree with someone's ideas, but personal attacks, insults, threats, hate speech, advocating violence and other violations can result in a ban.
If you see comments in violation of our community guidelines, please report them.

Senate panel OKs body cameras bill

A Senate panel today unanimously approved a bill that would mandate body cameras for law enforcement officers statewide and place restrictions on the release of video when it is made inside of homes.(Photo: Jessica J. Trevino / AP)

COLUMBIA – A Senate panel today unanimously approved a bill that would mandate body cameras for law enforcement officers statewide and place restrictions on the release of video when it is made inside of homes.

Bills in the House and Senate to require body cameras had been filed last year, but the death of Walter Scott in North Charleston has propelled the legislation amid cries for more transparency in the interaction between police and civilians.

"I think this is a great day for crime victims to have this piece of legislation," said Laura Hudson, executive director of the South Carolina Crime Victims Council.

The amended bill would require the state's Law Enforcement Council — made up of the attorney general, directors of state law enforcement agencies, police chiefs, sheriffs and detention center directors — to design policies for body camera use within 180 days of the bill's passage. Local agencies would have 90 days to develop their own policies.

The bill creates a fund to help pay for the cameras through grants. However, the Legislature still must approve funding for the program, estimated to cost at least $21 million.

A privacy provision copied from a Michigan bill would exempt the release of video taken inside homes or private places except to the subject of the video, parents or legal guardians of those in the video, attorneys for those in the video or law enforcement representatives.

Greenville Police Chief Ken Miller testified in support of body cameras, telling senators his department in Greensboro, N.C., used them while he was police chief there.

"The cameras were helpful up there, I thought," he said.

Miller said he implemented cameras in the agency and his was the first larger police agency to use them in the state. He said about 500 police officers were covered, and the public and a police foundation helped pay the initial cost, which he said was about $465,000 for three years. He said 285 cameras were provided initially and officers shared cameras.

He said North Carolina's public records law was very restrictive about what video could be released "and that created problems for the police department."

"There were things we wanted to release under transparency and promotion of the public trust that we couldn't," he said. He said South Carolina's public records law is very unrestricted and he encouraged senators to address privacy concerns.

"When we are in your home, and then we get a public records request, usually it's from the news media, but whether it's from a criminal or somebody whose prurient interests are to go inside people's homes and see what's out there, you don't want that posted on YouTube."

Columbia businessman Rick Wade told senators that while the bill might not be perfect, "it is certainly a major step in the right direction."

He said while conflicts between police and civilians are not new, the shooting death of Scott and other African-American males around the country by police have "shed light on the chasm between the two."

"It's not a black or white issue," he said. "It's an American issue, a humanity issue, a justice issue and to some, it's a matter of life or death."

He said body-worn cameras, along with proper training, will provide objective recordings of police interactions, reduce frivolous complaints and lawsuits, place officers and perpetrators on equal footing with regard to evidence and embrace technology.

He said after body cameras went into effect in one California town, complaints against officers dropped 88 percent and use-of-force reports dropped 60 percent

Nelson Rivers III, a North Charleston pastor and a former chief operating officer for the NAACP, said because of the legislation, "we're standing on the precipice of a remarkable day in South Carolina."

"This is not about black and white, as Al Sharpton said, this is about wrong and right," he said.

Jarrod Bruder, executive director of the South Carolina Sheriff's Association, speaking on behalf of his organization, the state Department of Public Safety, the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division and others, said law enforcement agencies in the state have been experimenting with body cameras for five years.

Some have found cameras they like, he said, while other agencies have not.

Issues surrounding the cameras, he said, include privacy concerns, protecting the identity of witnesses, juveniles, informants and sexual assault victims, storage of the video and the costs.

He said police agencies need the help of the state in determining which officers should wear cameras, when they should be worn and activated, restrictions of the release of video.

Hudson also pointed out that not all law enforcement vehicles are equipped with dash cams and, if the state is funding body cameras, it also should make sure all police cars have dash cams.

The measure now goes to the full Senate Judiciary Committee, where chairman Larry Martin of Pickens promised swift action.